Safe Speed Forums

Jeez. Yes, whatever.



Disingenuous at the very least methinks...

<whatever answer you want to hear in this space>

It's funny that you never really ever see people going to slow for the conditions, it always seems to be to fast for the conditions. Speed limits are there to stop stupid people from leaving the road at 90mph on reaching the first corner!

_________________
"would go faster if it wasn't for the cars blocking the roads"

well that would be because you pay no attention to the slow ones but I see people doing well under 70 on clear motorways all the time so they are around and they're more dangerous than your so called speeders.


so please tell us how you manage not to crash on twisty NSL roads then?

so does that mean you now agree that exceeding the speed limit doesn't have a whole lot to do with the dangerous driving you're worried about?

Doesn't work though does it? We still have hundrends of fatalities and thousands of serious injuries (or whatever) each year because vehicles leave the roads on bends; some speeding; some not.

In other words, sticking to the speed limit won't stop you from overcooking a bend.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

You have, I trust by omission, not quoted what I said: "MAIN ROADS".

By inexperienced do you mean 'might be scared by vehicles travelling over the speed limit'? Any child of mine would be put through cycling proficiency before they were too old to ride on the pavement. I would then allow them onto side roads after further accompaniement by myself to ensure their abilities and awareness were sufficient. Of course, any child younger than this would be accompanied by me anyway, or seen onto the bus (presuming that they shouldn't be banned from bus-stops because they are too close to inconsiderate drivers).

To any responsible parent, cycling proficiency should be just as important as learning to swim. Train them young, train them for life I say.

This isn't totalitarian. These are criminal offences. They endanger life. Full stop.

So, we should turn a blind eye to parking on zig-zags because a minority of parents are inconsiderate!? Excellent. I love it. I sincerely hope it wont be the injury or death of a child you know which makes you change your mind on that one.

My fixation is not with speed, I am merely responding to you. I suggest you look at the name of your site for the source of the fixation.

You are correct. Better educated drivers would be a huge improvement. INCLUDING (NOT SOLELY) speed education.

The vast majority of schools are in built-up areas. I can see no justification for exceeding 30mph in built-up areas, especially in the vicinity of schools. IMHO anyone who thinks differently is irresponsible and dangerous.

I tried looking for COAST, but can't seem to find it. I've no doubt it is sensible, but whether it can be used as a justification for reckless driving, I can't say until I read it.

Thanks for the answer. I was more thinking about the real-time risk management tasks. Have a look at this page: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sss.html - it gives a fair description of the sort of risk model that we all use subconsciously and continuously when we're driving.

Trying to control risk with a single parameter in isolation is doomed to fail. (Imagine for example deciding to paint the windscreen black and fitting a really big speedo.)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

but the name is SAFE speed not just SPEED - ie a SAFE speed for the prevailing conditions not any speed you feel like going. You've even said you do so yourself so where's the problem here?

Not whatsoever. It can be a factor. As I say elsewhere on this thread, it's not my fixation with speed...

But obviously because this accident was to do with inappropriate speed and behaviour, your going to point your finger and go "na-na-na, see you're wrong, all accidents aren't to do with breaking the speed limit!!", when it wasn't even my point in the first place.

I have many years experience of forums, and stopped poking disingenuous trolls long ago. I like debate, not point scoring.

Yeah it doesn't work. Just goes to show how stupid people are!! What about tight bends that have 'SLOW' signs. They're meant for the stupid people too. As for answering the earlier question what stops me from going off on NSL roads...the answer....I'm not stupid.

Try living in Scotland and watching motorists in the snow. Stupidity overload!! Saying that, there probably worse down here.

Another thing (sorry), why do people in London drive faster and more erratically (sp?) when it's raining?

_________________
"would go faster if it wasn't for the cars blocking the roads"

it wasn't even to do with inappropriate speed. She either just didn't look or presumed that you were going 5mph. You seem to have overlooked my earlier point that NONE of the incidents I've had while cycling have involved a motorist that was going anywhere near the speed limit. What I'd like to know is how your fixation on speed will stop these idiots from trying to kill me?

so you don't need a sign to tell you the SAFE speed to take a corner even though it might only be a quarter of the prevailing speed limit? Hmmm.

I think the problem is individual perception of SAFE speed. I might consider 15mph to be safe, where as you might think 45mph is safe for the same corner. I would think the lower speed would be safer. More time to react to any obstacles etc. I'm sure your view differs.

_________________
"would go faster if it wasn't for the cars blocking the roads"

yes and that perception has a lot to do with observation. I would go around that corner at a speed well within the limit of my car/bike and also such that I can stop in the distance I can see to be clear. I don't need to look at my speedo to determine the speed for the corner (nor do I) and wouldn't be able to accurately tell you how fast I was going because it's not relevant to driving/riding safely.

And that's why people come off the road. they are neither perceptive or observant = stupid! So someone with lack of awareness, is going to be a greater danger if they are going fast, compared to if they were going slower. If you run into a lamp post, it hurts more than if you walk into it, doesn't it?

_________________
"would go faster if it wasn't for the cars blocking the roads"

Oh, that's pretty straightforward. It's the old observe-evaluate-adjust thing. If no-one else was taught that, I highly recommend my old driving instructor. As Steve Haley states, it is "very simple" scientifically for easy digestion. I'm presuming the current form is for representation of the risk in a relatively text-book situation, for example trunk roads and fenced clearways.

Of course, there are many other factors in, for example, urban scenarios:

The speed is pretty much a constant, insomuch that the final decision feeds back into the equation, which revolves around this single factor (as far as it is the only factor the driver has control of).

The driver has some modicum of control over the space, but this does become an almost random variable in certain situations and can tend to zero in milliseconds (the child chasing the ball, the car not stopping at a blind drive/junction). Of course the distinction is whether we start calling the defintition 'Risk' or 'Blame', and even then we could also factor in consequence. Obviously the consequence of hitting a car that pulled out in front is very different at 20mph than at 40mph. I've seen it happen. It ain't pretty.

The Surprise element is of course the most erratic, as it can vary not only in nature, but also can on occasion be directly proportional to the possibly random nature of the space variable.

If we look at a combination of Risk and Consequence, then as the situation becomes more 'crowded' (Space and vision) then certain variables will have to be treated as the lowest common value that can reasonably be expected (someone will one day pull/run out in front of you with no warning) to minimise the sum of these.

I would say the only missing variable is Response, which of course is hugely variable too. you sneeze, this changes hugely for around 1-2 seconds.

Of course, all of this presumes an impeccably maintained vehicle with the driver fully alert, which I would hope apllies to us all.

I'm actually sure that this is similar to the type of calculation used to determine urban speed limits, must have a look around for it. In fact, I think in text book situations there is actually an inverse proportion of the factors, thus why the "only a fool breaks the two second rule" works.

I wouldn't mind looking into more of Steve's work as well, actually. I used to be a bit of a physics and mathematics geek when I was younger, and real-life applications interest me. Do you have further information on this site or does he have his own site?

Overall, we don't seem to disagree on much here. I'm quite surprised you're disagreeing with me. This equation in itself demonstrates that urban situations are vastly different from 'open road' / Outrun situations.


But, as I said, there are many more factors than speed anyway. Speed, while not always a causal factor, can be a major Risk factor (if taken in the context of 'Consequence Risks').

However, if you don't look at the road, you will crash. If you're watching the road, you wont stop for that car pulling out anyway. So then you have to think about consequence.

Phew!

so rather than presuming everyone is stupid shouldn't we think about educating those that actually are?


you're right, so how fast should they be driving exactly?



I prefer to avoid the lamp post altogether.

I was talking about incidents too. But now you're focussing on one accident.

I don't have a fixation with speed.

Bugger. I've fallen for it...

How is



focussing on one accident?

??

You were focussing on the actual collision I had. Believe me, the 'incidents' number far far far more than that.

I was merely commenting, and to be honest you have all the answers to your questions. Step out of your own reality tunnel and read them again.

Sorry, but I'm spending most of my time having constructive discussions with other people on this forum.